JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. Both these appeals are being tried together being arising out of the same award dated 20th December, 2007 passed in claim case No. 149/2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon. The appeal MAC 193/2008 is by the claimants for enhancement of the award and MAC 219/2008 is by the bank wherein liability has been fastened over the bank. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that claim petition was preferred by Bharat Lal Dewangan and Smt. Geeta Bai, father and mother of the deceased Santosh. It was stated that the deceased who was elder son, while was walking on the road he was dashed from behind by respondent No. 1 i.e. original non-applicant No. 1 Kamal Kumar Verma by the tractor which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, serious injuries were sustained. Subsequently, the injured when was brought to the Rajnandgaon Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. It was stated that deceased was carpenter and used to earn Rs. 150 per day and the claimants were dependents on him. Consequently, amount of Rs. 18,97,000/- was claimed. In the claim petition the driver Kamal Kumar Verma and owner Latmar Singh Verma were made a party and State Bank of India who was financier of the offending tractor was also made a party. The non-applicants No. 1 and 2 in their reply stated that on the date of accident the non-applicant No. 1 was having valid licence and it was stated by the non-applicant No. 3 that they have been unnecessarily impleaded as a party only for the reason that vehicle was financed by the bank. It was further stated that the bank was not under any obligation to keep the vehicle under insurance and therefore cannot be held liable to make good the compensation. 3. Learned tribunal after evaluating the evidence and facts has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,61,000/-. It was also directed that amount of compensation first to be paid by the bank who in turn shall recover the same from non-applicants owner and driver. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants in MAC No. 193/2008 would submit that tribunal has failed to take into account just compensation. He would submit that despite evidence on record income of the deceased was Rs. 150 per day tribunal has assessed income to Rs. 12,000/- per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants in MAC No. 193/2008 would submit that tribunal has failed to take into account just compensation. He would submit that despite evidence on record income of the deceased was Rs. 150 per day tribunal has assessed income to Rs. 12,000/- per annum. He further submits that apart from other conventional heads also meager amount has been awarded which too needs re-consideration for enhancement. He submits that since bank was financier and was under obligation to keep the vehicle insured, in such case direction given by the tribunal to pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover it from the owner and driver is also well merited which do not call for any interference. 5. Learned counsel appearing in MAC No. 219/2008 on behalf of the bank would submit that as per award directing payment of compensation by the bank and thereafter to recover it is completely perverse. He would submit that as per agreement, bank was not under any obligation to continue and insure the vehicle, therefore the direction given could not have been made to the financier for payment of the compensation and thereafter recover it from the owner and driver. He relied in the case of M/s. Godavari Finance Co. v. Degala Satyanarayanamma & Ors. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3440 and would submit that under similar circumstances Supreme Court has held liability over the financier cannot be fastened and therefore prayed to set aside the part of the award wherein direction is given to the bank to pay amount of compensation and then recover the amount. 6. After evaluating the evidence, the tribunal has come to conclusion that at the relevant time offending vehicle i.e. tractor was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which dashed the deceased. Consequently, he died. Such part has not been challenged by either of the parties, therefore in absence of challenge to the same, same is affirmed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the documents and the evidence on record. 8. Now coming to the question of quantum of compensation. Initially quantum of compensation which is primarily in question in MAC No. 193/2008 is dealt with. 9. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the documents and the evidence on record. 8. Now coming to the question of quantum of compensation. Initially quantum of compensation which is primarily in question in MAC No. 193/2008 is dealt with. 9. Perusal of statement of father of the deceased namely Bharat Lal Dewangan would show that he had stated that at the time of death age of the deceased was 22 years and was earning Rs. 150 per day and was expert in making furniture. The post mortem report is exhibited as Ex. P-6 which shows that age of the deceased was 22 years. He further stated that the claimants mother and father were dependents on the deceased. There is no much cross examination to this witness except that a question was placed no document was placed showing the income. The learned tribunal has held the income of the deceased to Rs. 1000/- per month. 10. In order to come to a finding of notional income, the reference is made to Section163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. For the sake of brevity, Section 163-A is reproduced herein-below: "163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis:-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. xxx xxx xxx (2) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, amend the Second Schedule." 11. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, amend the Second Schedule." 11. The above quoted sub-section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act mandated the Central Government to amend the Second Schedule from time to time keeping in view the cost of living. 12. As the Central Government has failed to amend the Second Schedule as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 163-A of the Act, the Courts/Tribunals can take judicial notice of increase in the prices of essential commodities and the cost of living during the period between the introduction of the Second Schedule in the year 1994 and the date of accident in the given case. 13. Now reverting to the present case, the accident in the present case is reported to have taken place in the year 2004, therefore if the hike in price of essential commodities and cost of living during the period of 1994 and 2004 are taken into consideration the notional income, in the opinion of this Court, would certainly come to Rs. 36,000/- per annum i.e. @ Rs. 3000/- per month. The same view has been reported by this Court in a case law reported in 2010 (1) CGLJ 425 (Rewati Bai and others v. Bodhan Thakur and others. 14. The deceased was at the time of the accident was said to be of 22 years and was self employed. Therefore, following the principles in the case of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 in order to make addition of future prospect 50% of the wages of notional income is included which comes to Rs. 18,000/-. The deceased in the case was a bachelor and therefore 50% is deducted and annual dependency comes to Rs. 27,000/-. Age of the deceased was 22 years as per Ex. P-6, therefore multiplier of 18 would be applicable which comes to Rs. 4,86,000/-. Further on the head of loss of love and affection an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-, amount of funeral expenses is enhanced from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 15,000/- therefore the compensation is reassessed as under:-- S.No. Heads Calculation 1. Annual dependency Rs.27,000/- per annum 2. Compensation after applying multiplier of 18 Rs. 4,86,000/- 3. For loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/- 4. For funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-, amount of funeral expenses is enhanced from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 15,000/- therefore the compensation is reassessed as under:-- S.No. Heads Calculation 1. Annual dependency Rs.27,000/- per annum 2. Compensation after applying multiplier of 18 Rs. 4,86,000/- 3. For loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/- 4. For funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs.5,51,000/- 15. Thus, the total compensation will be Rs. 5,51,000/-. After deducting Rs. 1,61,000/- awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 3,90,000/-. 16. The other appeal is by the bank against the finding that compensation awarded has to be recovered firstly from the bank, thereafter bank shall be entitled to recover on the ground that offending vehicle was hypothecated to the bank and bank has failed in its duty to get vehicle insured and thereafter the liability has been fastened. In this context statement of the bank officer who has proved the hypothecation agreement is perused. The witness of the bank officer L.P. Shrivastava he had stated that bank was not obliged to get the vehicle insured and it is only insured when owner of the vehicle failed to get vehicle insured then only the role of the bank comes into play. Agreement of hypothecation is placed on record wherein in first schedule following terms of agreement are engrafted:-- ^^;g fd m/kkjdrkZ lHkh le; bl izdkj dh izfrHkqfr;ksa dh lHkh enksa dks tks fd chek ;ksX; Lo:i dh gS cSad }kjk ;Fkk visf{kr vkx vFkok vU; fdlh izdkj ds tksf[keksa dh gkfu vFkok {kfr ls chekd`r j[ksaxs rFkk ,slh lHkh chek iWkfylh;ksa dks cSad dks lkSi nsaxsA ;g fof/k lEer ijUrq cSad ij ck/;dkjh ugh gksxk fd og izfrHkwfe ds laca/k esa tks fd chek ;ksX; Lo:i dh gS] m/kkjdŸkkZ ds [kkrs@[kkrks es ukes Mkydj chekd`r djk;sA bl izdkj dh chek ls gksus okyh izkfIr;ksa dks cSad ds fodYi ds vuqlkj ;k rks izfrHkwfr ds cnys nwljk izfrHkwfe j[kus vFkok cSad dh ns; jkf’k dks olwy djus ds fy, iz;qDr djsxkA^^ "That the borrower(s) shall at all times keep such items of security as are of insurable nature, insured against loss or damage by fire and other risks as may be required by the bank and shall deliver to the Bank all such policies. It shall be also lawful for but not obligatory upon the bank to insure by debit to the borrower(s) account(s) in respect of the security as are of insurable nature. The proceeds of such insurance shall at the option of the bank either be applied towards replacement of the security or towards the satisfaction of the bank's dues." 17. Reading of such agreement would reveal that it was the duty of the borrower i.e. owner of the offending vehicle to get same insured against loss or damage by fire and other risk and deliver policy to the bank. Witness of the bank had stated that bank did not have any knowledge about the accident and admitted the fact that offending vehicle was given on loan. It was further stated that as per agreement it was duty of the borrower to get vehicle registered when the vehicle was in the name of the borrower. The ownership of the vehicle that it was in the name of the borrower is not in dispute. 18. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Godavari Finance Co. v. Degala Satyanarayanamma & Ors. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3440 has an occasion to deal with definition owner of the vehicle had laid down that when the vehicle is purchased on hire purchase financier cannot be treated as owner and the liability to pay compensation cannot be saddled on him. 19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 of it judgment has held as under:-- "13. In case of a motor vehicle which is subjected to a Hire-Purchase Agreement, the financier cannot ordinarily be treated to be the owner. The person who is in possession of the vehicle, and not the financier being the owner would be liable to pay damages for the motor accident." 20. The Supreme Court further interpreted and laid down that when the application for payment of compensation is filed before the tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act for adjudicating upon the claim for compensation in respect of accident involving the death of any person arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, damages to any motor vehicle, the tribunal shall adjudicate the same. Therefore, the use of the motor vehicle is a sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compensation. Therefore, the use of the motor vehicle is a sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compensation. Ordinarily if driver of the vehicle would use the same, he remains in possession or control thereof. 21. Here in the instant case, applying the aforesaid test, bank certainly cannot be stated to be owner of the vehicle and reading it along with hypothecation agreement it do not insist duty on the bank to keep vehicle insured and they were not obliged to do so and it was duty of the owner to keep vehicle insured and inform it to the bank. Claimants have not placed anything on record to show that they have informed to the bank that they have failed to insure. The owner had stated that while availing the bank loan he was not asked to get insurance done of the vehicle and document of loan were explained to him but if Ex. D-3 hypothecation agreement is perused which purports that it was duty of the borrower to keep the security as insurable nature and it was duty to get insured vehicle against any risk. It further purports the condition it is not obligatory upon the bank to get insurance, therefore reading such condition do not leave any scope of interpretation that bank as a financier was not under any obligation to get vehicle insured. 22. In a consequence, finding arrived at by the learned tribunal that since bank has failed to get vehicle insured as such bank is liable to make payment of the compensation and thereafter is entitled to recover it, the same cannot be sustained. 23. In a result, appeal MAC No. 219/2008 filed by the bank is allowed. Finding of the learned tribunal that bank is liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants is set aside. Appeal MAC No. 193/2008 filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The claimants will be entitled to enhanced amount of Rs. 3,90,000/- in addition to what is already awarded. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition and the respondents No. 1 and 2 shall be liable to make good the amount of compensation. Total amount of compensation has been enhanced herein along with interest therein. Appeal filed by the bank since has been allowed, bank is absolved of its liability to pay compensation.